Budget Efficiency vs Welfare: The Dilemma of Part-Time PPPK in Indonesia

For years, becoming a State Civil Apparatus (ASN) remained the most coveted ‘final harbour’ for millions of honorary workers across Indonesia. Behind their dedication in remote schools and crowded public service desks lay a hope for certainty of status and a more decent standard of living. Yet, instead of a mass appointment bringing good news, the atmosphere is now filled with anxiety following the emergence of a new policy: Part-Time PPPK.

This policy arrives as a government solution to manage non-ASN personnel without resorting to mass layoffs. However, behind the narrative of ‘rescue’ lies a sharp conflict of interest. On one side, the government demands budget efficiency for the sake of national fiscal stability. On the other, millions of workers are questioning whether this ‘part-time’ status is a genuine solution or merely a new form of exploitation. The dilemma between the figures on budget spreadsheets and the reality of welfare is now the core issue in our personnel governance.

The policy on part-time PPPK did not emerge from a vacuum. Its root is the urgent push to complete the restructuring of non-ASN or honorary workers across all government agencies. Based on the mandate of Law Number 20 of 2023 concerning the State Civil Apparatus, the government is obliged to resolve the status of non-ASN employees, culminating in the permanent abolition of honorary workers. When this policy met reality on the ground, the government hit a thick wall called budget limitations. The capacity of the State Budget (APBN) and Regional Budgets (APBD) is clearly insufficient to accommodate the simultaneous appointment of millions of honorary workers into full-time ASN or PPPK positions.

It is under these constrained conditions that the part-time PPPK scheme emerged as a middle-ground alternative. From a regulatory perspective, this discourse also rests on a legal umbrella aligned with Government Regulation Number 49 of 2018 concerning PPPK Management. The context of this policy’s birth is quite pragmatic: the government seeks to fulfil the legal mandate to tidy up personnel administration without taking extreme measures like mass layoffs, which could trigger social unrest and paralyse public service sectors in the regions.

From a macroeconomic perspective, the government’s move to introduce a part-time scheme has a fairly strong rational foundation. Currently, the burden of personnel expenditure in both the State and Regional Budgets is often a dominant component, sometimes even straining the fiscal capacity of regions to carry out infrastructure development or community empowerment. The government bears a significant responsibility to maintain fiscal stability so that the wheels of the state keep turning without falling into a debt crisis or excessive deficit. In the classical economic view popularised by Adam Smith, efficient state financial management is the key to prosperity. Smith emphasised that the state must manage its resources wisely and avoid waste on unproductive bureaucratic spending.

Part-time PPPK is considered a more flexible and realistic instrument. With this model, the government can allocate budgets more precisely, paying workers according to hours worked and actual field needs without having to bear long-term burdens such as full benefits or substantial pension costs. For the government, this is an effort to provide legal status certainty for workers, but within the reasonable limits of the state’s ‘wallet’.

Behind the efficiency figures pursued by the government, deep concerns lie about the real fate of the workers. The part-time scheme carries a significant risk of reducing the monthly income received by workers. Without strict primary regulations, this policy could potentially provide wages that are only enough for survival, with no room for savings or future security. Added to this is the uncertainty regarding leave rights and social security, which often become neglected in contract or part-time work systems.

The biggest fear is the birth of a new caste in our bureaucracy: ‘semi-certain’ employees. They possess legal status but lack economic certainty. This condition aligns perfectly with the concept of the ‘Precariat’ defined by sociologist Guy Standing. The Precariat is a class of workers living in precarious and insecure conditions, lacking job security, a stable professional identity, and adequate social protection. If we look through the lens of John Rawls and his theory of Justice as Fairness, a public policy can only be considered just if it provides the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society. Is the part-time PPPK status sufficiently fair for those who have served for decades? Or is this policy merely a subtle way for the state to perpetuate an insecure work system under the pretext of budget efficiency? Without strong protection, social justice for these public service warriors will remain a pipe dream.

The dilemma of part-time PPPK does not stop at the employees’ kitchen tables; it has a tangible domino effect on the quality of public services.